From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David G Johnston <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Would you help to review our modifications |
Date: | 2014-10-21 13:16:30 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0waEiiq=wSKVTs3zb3JuBtWsVg8z209__xty1vCW4hOyg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:02 AM, David G Johnston
<david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> rohtodeveloper wrote
>> So how to deal with this kind of situation if I want a implicit
>> conversion?
>
> As of the out-of-support 8.3 release many of the implicit casts previously
> defined have been changed to explicit casts. It is a catalog change -
> obviously, since you can still define implicit casts - so if you absolutely
> must have the pre-existing cast be implicit you can modify the catalog
> directly.
>
> You may wish to describe why you think this is the solution you need - with
> implicit casting there are generally more downsides that upsides.
I feel your pain. My company just last year completed a nine month
effort to validate a sprawling code base for post 8.3 casts. We were
orphaned on 8.1 and were very nearly forced to switch to another
database.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-10-21 13:47:35 | Re: Inconsistencies in documentation of row-level locking |
Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2014-10-21 13:14:00 | Re: Patch: Add launchd Support |